Roger Tilghman v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company

D.C. Circuit

Roger Tilghman v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company

288 F.2d 155, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5325

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided February 15, 1961·No. 15956·Published

Opinion

*156 PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a judgment based on a verdict directed by the court in favor of defendants at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence on liability. The actions were for personal injuries to plaintiff, a sheet-metal mechanic, consequent upon a fall on a construction job, and also a claimed loss of consortium. The fall was attributed to his stepping on a pipe coupling in an allegedly poorly lighted area of the building under construction. Plaintiff received compensation from his own employer, a subcontractor, and sued the defendants, who are the owners of the property, the general contractor, and another subcontractor.

We find no adequate reason to reverse the ruling of the District Court that the evidence was insufficient to raise an issue for the jury as to any negligence on the part of any defendant which could be said to be a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The judgment from which he appeals is accordingly

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*156 PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a judgment based on a verdict directed by the court in favor of defendants at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence on liability. The actions were for personal injuries to plaintiff, a sheet-metal mechanic, consequent upon a fall on a construction job, and also a claimed loss of consortium. The fall was attributed to his stepping on a pipe coupling in an allegedly poorly lighted area of the building under construction. Plaintiff received compensation from his own employer, a subcontractor, and sued the defendants, who are the owners of the property, the general contractor, and another subcontractor.

We find no adequate reason to reverse the ruling of the District Court that the evidence was insufficient to raise an issue for the jury as to any negligence on the part of any defendant which could be said to be a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The judgment from which he appeals is accordingly

Affirmed.

Roger Tilghman v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company, 288 F.2d 155, 109 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5325 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

288 F.2d 155 (Roger Tilghman v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.